Hasan was an uber driver. In 2023, he arranged insurance for his vehicle through an insurance adviser. During the initial phone discussion, the insurance adviser asked about the value of the car, and Hasan said he had bought it for $24,000 however had done some work on it. He thought it was now worth about $28,000. The insurance adviser arranged a policy for Hasan and the sum insured was recorded as $28,000.
In January 2024, the vehicle was written off in an accident. Hasan lodged a claim with the insurer who offered to settle the claim at the current market value of the car, which was $14,000. Hasan was surprised at this because he expected to receive $28,000.
Hasan complained that the insurance adviser had misled him about the cover he was getting; he thought he was getting an agreed value policy. The insurance adviser said he did not mislead Hasan. Hasan then complained to FSCL.
Dispute
Hasan said that in the initial phone conversation, the insurance adviser gave him the impression he had signed up for an agreed value policy. He said there had been an “extensive chat” about the value of the vehicle, and that he had been clear he wanted an agreed value policy.
The insurance adviser disputed that Hasan said he wanted an agreed value policy. Further, the insurance policy and the insurance summary recorded that the policy was a market value policy.
Review
We reviewed the recording of the initial phone conversation. The insurance adviser had asked about the value of the car, and Hasan replied that after the work he had done on it, it was worth around $27,000 to $28,000. This was the extent of the conversation about the car’s value. While Hasan recalled there had been an extensive conversation about the value of the car, this was not the case.
There were further phone calls between the insurance adviser and Hasan. These were not recorded, however the notes taken by the insurance adviser covered queries from Hasan about the quote for cover, the excess, and Roadside Assist. These issues were referred to in later emails. However, there was no reference to agreed value in the notes or in the emails.
The insurance summary the insurance adviser emailed to Hasan clearly recorded that the policy was not an agreed value policy. Hasan was also told to carefully check the insurance summary and the policy wording.
Resolution
We explained to Hasan that because there was no independent evidence that he told the insurance adviser he wanted an agreed value vehicle policy or that the insurance adviser gave him the impression he would obtain a quote for an agreed value policy, he should discontinue his complaint.
Hasan agreed to discontinue his complaint.
Insights for consumers
Consumers should read their insurance summaries and policy wordings to confirm they understand the cover they have.
Market value is the standard basis of settlement of claims for commercial vehicles. Agreed value policies are available but will likely cost more.
